About your Search

20130117
20130125
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
approval rating in a while. this is the natural ebb and flow. it usually builds up after winning re-election. there are a lot of things in the agenda space. you pay off a limited budget right? you can purchase things with that political capital. the horror of newtown is such that it has forced this issue to the foreti particularly in the wake of aurora. if you were designing the agenda in the absence of that and obviously you can't do that is this something that you want to see prioritized or are there other things you would put ahead of it? >> no. this is something that needs to be prioritized. of course the whole issue of sequestration and raising the debt ceiling limit, getting the budget under control, are probably our highest priority at this point in time. we should be meeting four and five days a week in committee doing the job that we were elected to do and the republican leadership has not set a schedule that we can do that. the whole gun control issue has been on the front pages now for decades and the democrats, republicans, none of us have really done anything about it. so i thin
elections, but this committee is rigged. >> and she ran the nominating committee in 2012. there is a new committee in effect now. but the way the elections work, it is sort of like a communist politburo, nobody knows who is on there. >> you just finding out who is on there is difficult. >> absolutely, and supporters of the nra, but some claim it is a sham election. they hand-pick the candidates for the nra elections that get on the ballot. and 29 out of 31 candidates on the ballot are in fact picked by the nominating committee. every year, one or two get on by a petition of 250 members or more. the result is, the election is a done deal before the ballots go out. and pro-nra bloggers entered a complaint, that i don't know if i will fill it out, it is a waste of time, there is no discussion or debate in the process. it is simply about rubber stamping about what the nominating committee has already done. and ultimately it is a way the board and the paid executive officers that are chosen by the board to keep themselves and people loyal to them in power. >> and this is the way this guy -- d
they're worried about their elections. i think that in the center of the country and the red states where these senators are running, they don't think that the president's message works, and they're going to try to move themselves away from that because they're worried about it. they're worried about all these -- >> we're talking about the majority of the country though. if the majority is with the president, is he too liberal? that's what i'm asking. can you call the guy too left when he's right where the middle is? how can you keep saying that? it's the only question i want to put to you. if more than 50% support equality of marriage, more than 50% support a woman's right to choose, if more than 50% are with him on guns and foreign policy, how can you call that the far left? >> let me put it this way, the fact of the matter is this is going to be politically very problematic for harry reid because for the constituency he represents in the senate, they're not going to be able to get a lot of things that the president wants done because it's too far to the left of him. for example,
democrats in line. many of them are up for re-election in 2014. potentially vulnerable. montana senator max baucus responded to the senate in a statement, quote, before passing new laws, we need a debate that respects responsible, law-abiding gun owners in montana instead of a one-size-fits-all directives from washington. joe manchin said, quote, i'm disappointed the president did not recommend the creation of a national commission on mass violence that i have proposed. a national commission can build the consensus we need for real action, backed not only by gun control advocates, mental health experts and entertainment industry executives but also by law-abiding gun owners. >>> the white house is worried that if this fight becomes too much about the assault weapons ban, and not enough about measures, which are more politically possible, they'll have a problem. they want to keep people focused on fights they can win. background checks, things like that. republicans have unsurprisingly responded negatively, including florida senator marco rubio. >> by the own admission of the white house, wh
out who are still elected representatives of the party. one, to say hey, let's have a real conversation here and not just hide behind the nra and its rhetoric of fear. >> michael, do you think there are any republicans that will vote for any of the proposals that were put on the table today? >> i do. and i'll tell you why. it's the numbers that you show in the first segment today, those poll numbers. that's where the rubber meets the road here. it's a turning point and one that the party better get in front of. >> at this point in time, the only gop voice we are really hearing are the crazy ones. so you might be right, michael, susan, any other republicans who are out there. but as the debate is being framed, we don't see any real republicans in leadership positions taking a moderate -- >> michael, i hope you're correct. >> the obama campaign apparatus is going to take on the nra. we'll ask if the president will hit the road to make his case directly to the american people. then find out how survivors are reacting to the president's plan. sandy hook's top educator gives an
her outburst is not an outburst. it's a re-election flection of l think about this. if you were going to be real about these issues you would be asking what can we do to beef up the security. something gop members have already cut, you know, and they have decisions to cut it now in these days as we're speaking. it's rank hypocrisy. i think it's a fresh breath of air that people -- >> i agree with you about the hypocrisy because i remember 9/11 very clearly and i remember how this country rallied around a president who had limited ability but we all rallied around him. the first reaction was he says we're going to get the people who knocked down this building and everybody cheered him. they weren't saying how did you screw it up buddy. it was about unit. the left and center are much better at national unity than the right. the right sees a national tragedy like this far off in bengha benghazi, not in new york city, at a very exposed position which could have happened no matter how many troops he would there. we don't blame it on everybody even know it was new york right into the heart
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)